(A New History of Western Philosophy)[Kant] seeks to show that without the metaphysical concepts that Hume sought to dismantle, Hume's own basic items of experience, impressions, and ideas would themselves disintegrate
The real world, unattainable, undemonstrable...And if unattained also unknown...The 'real world' - an idea no longer of any use...an idea grown useless, superfluous, consequently a refuted idea: let us abolish it!...We have abolished the real world: what world is left? the apparent world perhaps?...But no! with the real world we have also abolished the apparent world!'
In The Critique of Pure Reason, Kant distinguished between the phenomenal world (the world as representation) and the noumenal world (the world as it is in itself). The former refers to the world as we experience it; the latter refers to the world as it exists independently of our experience. My question concerns whether Kant is justified in positing the existence of the noumenal world. — philosophy
It´s a known unknown, like girls for unmarried Kant. — DiegoT
I kant understand what you mean by this. Perhaps you want to state that the phenomenal world is also real? I agree with you; but then what noumenos means for Kant is what we now call "fundamental" or primary. — DiegoT
And, do you see a pretty obvious problem with your question in your paragraph, here?The former refers to the world as we experience it; the latter refers to the world as it exists independently of our experience. My question concerns whether Kant is justified in positing the existence of the noumenal world. — philosophy
My question concerns whether Kant is justified in positing the existence of the noumenal world — philosophy
It seems to me that Kant presupposes that there exists a world which, by virtue of its being independent of our experience, is unknowable, yet nevertheless is the cause of our experience. This presupposition seems to me unjustified. How does Kant know that such a world exists? — philosophy
There is no world "independent of our knowledge"? There certainly is a world independent of my knowledge of it. So what exactly do you mean?This presupposition is indeed unjustified, insofar as a world independent of our knowledge cannot be the cause of our experience. — Mww
So what exactly do you mean? — tim wood
Even so, I wouldn’t hesitate at all to claim there is no knowledge whatsoever of a world independent of my possible experience.
Do you have a favorite go-to translator for CPR? — Mww
It almost seems you're driving right towards Kant. Knowledge and experience belong to subjects individually. Which implies there is no other world but subjective experience and thereby only personal knowledge of it. Is that your conclusion?Yeah, I used first person architecture for that very reason: any knowledge and experience belongs to subjects individually. — Mww
(1) Statements about ideas. These are analytic, necessary, and knowable a priori.
(2) Statements about the world. These are synthetic, contingent, and knowable a posteriori. — philosophy
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.